Replies to This Discussion

Ok... a fungus is a life, a bacteria is a life... and we kill those every time we blink, swallow, scratch an itch.. eat food, eat MEAT (which is a free thinking life) eat plants (which have been shown to have some awareness) and basically live, thereby killing lifeforms by the billions and billions.
So what is one more, especially when it isn't just for day to day life, but for survival/necessity/choice?
What gives an embryo special rights? Because it's a human embryo? Does that mean you are against any birth control that can potentially cause early term miscarriage? What about ectopic pregnancies? There have been huge leaps in relocating the embryo to the womb. Should a woman that has one of these have to attempt to have it relocated or face punishment?
Awareness or lack there of does not equal life. That was never my argument. My argument is that you cannot force a woman to go through a risky medical procedure such as childbirth. The decision is hers to make because there are multiple variables involved. Physical health, emotional health, future reproduction, ect....
To say 'she made her choice when she had sex' (discounting a rape argument, I'd assume) would be like saying that STDs should not be treated for either gender.

1: Am not against killing trees; I was just replying to "Saying that it dies implies there was life".
2: I am against birth control that causes a miscarriage.
3: STD can be treated because the treatment does not necessitate killing someone else.
4: If the embryo could be relocated, that would be the only acceptable option.
5: We do not kill by having when others do not. There is a HUGE difference between killing and not saving.
6: I am entirely in support of free birth control for everyone, but I'm a communist so that's not saying much.
7: A lot of the arguments I'm seeing place emotions before rights and/or do not justify abortion after viability.

Um.. no. Even under Right to Rescue and other laws that apply to anyone that is trained in first aid, CPR, ect.....they are under no obligation to help any persons they see injured if they feel their own life might be in danger or that they might sustain injury.
I am a trained police diver. At any time, for any reason I can call off a dive. Even if I see someone clinging to a tree in the middle of a flooded river, I can shake my head and say "sorry, we aren't going in there. I'm not risking myself or my team in these conditions." I don't even have to give a reason for why I'm calling it off. I can say I 'had a bad feeling' and that is enough.
If my sister was going to die if I didn't give her a kidney, it is not murder for me to say no. Hell, it isn't even murder for me to say no, then sell the same kidney to someone else the next day.
When and where I endanger myself is my choice, no matter who or how many lives are involved, especially when your idea of 'life' isn't supported by anyone with medical knowledge.

I'm not sure how many times I can state this, but YOU have no legal grounds to ask anyone to risk themselves. Not for another human, not for an animal, sure as fuck not for something that can't think, breathe, feel pain, or have self awareness. There are laws to protect people from that way of thinking.

Outside of the argument, but on personal grounds, I'm even more insulted that you would demand such a risk from women when you are physically safe from the same thing. It's nothing you'll ever physically have to worry about, so sure, it is easy for you to cast judgment, as backwards and ungrounded as your reasoning may be.

lol....no, no you can't...you know...for someone who will never be able to give birth...you're pretty set in your ways and don't seem to believe in reason. you're kind of a nutbar of sorts...thinking for one minute that it is your right to tell others what to do with their bodies shows you may have some extreme control issues...socio-issues...worry about yourself and keep to yourself. you seem like the type to attack a clinic or something

Okay, here's my angle. I believe you're saying that at conception, a zygote should immediately have all of the rights of an adult human being. As an attorney and former criminal prosecutor, I see real problems with this.

As Dave G pointed out, this would mean that a miscarriage would be equal to the death of an adult human being under the law. If we are really and truly to enact and enforce laws that make it illegal to kill a fetus then we will have to deal with each and every miscarriage as a possible murder until the exact cause of death is established. Women would have to be required to report these "deaths" just as people are required to do with regard to deaths of adults. Police would have to investigate each and every death of a zygote or fetus. Some miscarriages are caused by hormone imbalances that could have been corrected, or consumption of alcohol or medications. We will have to decide as a society how to punish this negligence. Additional laws would have to be passed to regulate how pregnant women live so that they don't inflict harm upon the fetus - drinking, smoking, taking medications, all of these things would not be the choice of the pregnant woman, because the fetus would have its own rights that would have to be protected somehow.

Somehow, our society would have to pay for the increased police, guardians ad litem, prosecutors, judges, coroners, etc. Any abortion that is performed to save the mother's life would have to be reported and investigated. If the police disagree with the doctor and think that the mother's life wasn't in as much danger as the doctor thought, this would result in her arrest and prosecution for murder. A jury would then have to decide whether her life was in enough danger to allow an abortion. If they believe that it wasn't, it's off to prison for her and her doctor.

Other countries will not change their laws, and women who can afford it will go to Canada and get an abortion there. Will we have laws to prevent this? Though the "crime" is committed outside the jurisdiction of the U.S., would it be a crime to transport a fetus out of the country in order to kill it? If so, will pregnant women have restrictions on travel?

Then there are the fetuses developing without brains or who are missing vital organ and will not survive upon birth. Can the mother have this fetus aborted? Or does she have to go through to the end of the pregnancy, give birth, and then watch the baby die? Who will make this decision? The police?

It's my understanding that libertarian ideals promote greater freedom for all and less government control of people's lives. However, having an actual workable legal structure that affords fetuses the same rights as a human adult would be incredibly burdensome, with almost all of the burden being on women (with a good portion on doctors as well). This system would require huge public resources to enforce and it would turn our society into a place in which no self-respecting woman would want to live.

It's all well and good to have a personal opinion that a fetus should be treated as a human being and to live your own life accordingly, but to write this into law in such a way as to actually protect fetuses to the same extent that adults are protected would have incredible repercussions on society and the rights of women.

You say that your gender is irrelevant and I do agree, but as a woman am shocked that you have a view that it is ok to force your belief about life upon women who may not share your view. It is simply outrageous to me that you would basically force a women to go through pregnancy and childbirth. It is not reasonable to view this as murder because the unborn child requires it's mother's cooperation. If that mother does not want to give it, than that is quite simply HER choice. I am frustrated with you equating it to murdering a living person because it is VERY different. A woman's reproductive health is her responsibility and that includes deciding if she wants to continue to have anything growing INSIDE her body.

I am trying to be emotive about this because perhaps your gender has made you miss the point that women are completely outraged by being told that they do not have the choice about how to treat their own body. I picture the woman devastated by a difficult pregnancy, a woman in agony in child birth with the result of a baby who is resented when born or who is given away unwanted. I picture a woman enslaved by the state into putting herself through a process that is meant to be a joy, a moving into a new phase of life.

My gender means that I have grown up thinking about this process of pregnancy and birth and parenthood and it is very personal to me. When I chose to become pregnant I suffered through pregnancy, but it was my choice because of the joy I felt thinking of my wanted baby. When my baby was born and I held her in my arms it was just as I had hoped it would be my whole life. When I looked at my wanted child I felt love and an emotional connection that has been built on in my relationship with her. If I had been through this process by force it would have completely ruined my experience of this very personal and massively important part of my life and the life of my new baby.

I am telling you this because I believe strongly that a person's experience of life, the quality of their life is more important than the loss of a life not led. The life not led will never experience anything unpleasant, but what you are advocating is very unpleasant for the women and has a knock on effect to all those close to this injustice to a woman's liberty